The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused under the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes) Act after a compromise was reached upon between the parties and held that where the compromise is entered into between the parties and societal interest is not there, the court can exercise the power under Article 226 even if the sections are not compoundable.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition for quashing of criminal proceedings and the FIR filed against him in connection with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act pending in trial court.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the SC/ST Act was unnecessarily added due to a dispute between the parties but the parties had now compromised on the concerned matter and good sense has been prevailed between them.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the compromise has been reached between the parties and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner may now be quashed.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the judgement in Ramgopal & anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh where a compromise was reached between the parties in a case concerning Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989 and it was held that the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 CrPC or vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked.
The court further stated that where the compromise is entered into between the parties and societal interest is not there, the High Court can exercise the power under Article 226 even if the sections are not compoundable.
The court concluded that as the occurrence involved in the petition was purely personal having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature and the fact that the criminal justice system would remain unaffected by the acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties, the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Ali Irfan vs. The State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 384 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Rashmi Lal and Mr. Anjani Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
